ArticlePsychiatric services (Washington, D.C.)2024
Machine Learning-Based Evaluation of Suicide Risk Assessment in Crisis Counseling Calls.
Article in Psychiatric services (Washington, D.C.), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Introduction to the Special Issue on Transforming Prevention Science: Advances and Applications of Artificial Intelligence and Related Methods.Prevention science : the official journal of the Society for Prevention Research · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveCounselor assessment of suicide risk is one key component of crisis counseling, and standards require risk assessment in every crisis counseling conversation. Efforts to increase risk assessment frequency are limited by quality improvement tools that rely on human evaluation of conversations, which is labor intensive, slow, and impossible to scale. Advances in machine learning (ML) have made possible the development of tools that can automatically and immediately detect the presence of risk assessment in crisis counseling conversations.
methodsTo train models, a coding team labeled every statement in 476 crisis counseling calls (193,257 statements) for a core element of risk assessment. The authors then fine-tuned a transformer-based ML model with the labeled data, utilizing separate training, validation, and test data sets.
resultsGenerally, the evaluated ML model was highly consistent with human raters. For detecting any risk assessment, ML model agreement with human ratings was 98% of human interrater agreement. Across specific labels, average F1 (the harmonic mean of precision and recall) was 0.86 at the call level and 0.66 at the statement level and often varied as a result of a low base rate for some risk labels.
conclusionsML models can reliably detect the presence of suicide risk assessment in crisis counseling conversations, presenting an opportunity to scale quality improvement efforts.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.